Don't reuse transceiver in one round negotiation #2899
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sean-Der
approved these changes
Sep 6, 2024
cnderrauber
commented
Sep 6, 2024
| func() { | ||
| for _, t := range tracks { | ||
| for _, track := range tracks { | ||
| func(t *TrackRemote) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Narrow down the scope of the lock
cnderrauber
commented
Sep 6, 2024
| } | ||
| case direction == RTPTransceiverDirectionSendrecv: | ||
| if t.Direction() == RTPTransceiverDirectionSendonly { | ||
| t.setDirection(RTPTransceiverDirectionSendrecv) | ||
| } else if t.Direction() == RTPTransceiverDirectionInactive { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Transit Inactive transceiver to RecvOnly if the remote peer reuse the inactive transceiver to send track
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2899 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 78.95% 78.99% +0.04%
==========================================
Files 89 89
Lines 8481 8488 +7
==========================================
+ Hits 6696 6705 +9
+ Misses 1298 1296 -2
Partials 487 487
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
cnderrauber
commented
Sep 6, 2024
| @@ -1118,10 +1118,18 @@ func (pc *PeerConnection) SetRemoteDescription(desc SessionDescription) error { | |||
| case direction == RTPTransceiverDirectionRecvonly: | |||
| if t.Direction() == RTPTransceiverDirectionSendrecv { | |||
| t.setDirection(RTPTransceiverDirectionSendonly) | |||
| } else if t.Direction() == RTPTransceiverDirectionRecvonly { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Set RecvOnly transceiver to Inactive if the remote peer stop sending
Should not reuse transceiver (remove & add track) in one round negotiation, it cause the transceiver changes ssrc/id without transit to inactive and the remote peer connection can't fire track close and OnTrack event.
cnderrauber
force-pushed
the
reuse_transceiver
branch
from
a288d28
to
bc4bdaf
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Should not reuse transceiver (remove & add track) in one round negotiation, it causes the transceiver change ssrc/msid without transit to inactive and the remote peer connection can't fire track close and OnTrack event.
Description
Failure case:
SendRecv,RecvOnyIn step 5, B should not reuse track A's transceiver, otherwise the transceiver in offer and offer2 will not change direction but has different ssrc, cause pcAnwser can't fire OnTrack correctly.
Reference issue
Fixes #...